Genome cracker hits out at DNA patents

Grave new world . . . Francis Collins talks of his fears and hopes for genetic research at the International Congress of Genetics, in Melbourne yesterday. Photo: Paul Harris

An Australian firm that patented 95 per cent of human DNA has been attacked by the scientist who cracked the human genome.

Francis Collins, who led the international team that sequenced the genome, said Genetic Technologies had broken the scientific tradition of allowing academics free use of patented materials for basic research.

The company charges research institutes $1000 for use of its information and technology on "junk" DNA, the material that makes up most of the genome but which contains no genes. Dr Collins said this practice risked a backlash from the scientific community, as had similar restrictive moves by other firms.

"If Genetic Technologies aims to go down the same pathway, there is likely to be a similar uproar," he said yesterday, addressing the International Congress of Genetics in Melbourne.

However, the company's chairman, Mervyn Jacobson, said the $1000 fee was a "peppercorn" amount. "We do nothing which would impair a researcher pursuing his research."

He added that Genetic Technologies had spent millions developing its technology while others had written off "junk" DNA as a waste of time.

Dr Collins, who is director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, has been instrumental in ensuring all information about the human genome sequence goes into the public domain.

He said the next big project for gene scientists was a $US100 million plan by Canada, Japan, China, Britain and US to create a a free database of the small variations in human DNA.

The database, called a haplotype map, will allow researchers to search the whole human genome for genes linked to such diseases as cancer, heart disease, hypertension and diabetes, rather than rely, as now, on hunches as to what genes might increase their risk.

However, scientists have been advised that companies could use information from the database, and, with additional refinement or analysis, claim it as their own. For this reason a plan is in place to restrict access to those firms that agree not to block academic researchers from using any information the firms have gained from the database.

Dr Collins admitted the patent system had been the bedrock of innovation in the biotechnology industry but said a balance had to be struck. "What is best for the public? That ought to be the standard by which we judge intellectual property controversies."

He predicted that within 10 years people would be able to find out what diseases they were genetically prone to.

The genome project had shown that humans worldwide shared 99.9 per cent of their DNA; but the 0.1 per cent was still significant, Dr Collins said, and could accurately predict a person's ancestral background in many cases.

Race was certainly relevant to health from an environmental perspective, such as access to health care or cultural practices. "And races are not treated equally, sadly," he said.

Was race relevant at a genetic level? "For the most part we don't know."

Dr Collins believed unease about whether this new knowledge could be perverted was justified. "I'm concerned in the sense that I don't think we have arrived yet at a social consensus about how this information should best be used."

He thought more discussion involving the world's great religions was needed about how best to handle the ethical issues arising from genetic research.

It was a well kept secret that science and faith were entirely compatible, he said. "If God has any meaning at all, He has to be outside the natural world. Science is the wrong tool to try and understand Him."